Marxist Views on the Agrarian Question in Europe and in Russia[1]

Programme of
	Lectures

LectureI.General Theory of the Agrarian Question.Development
      of capitalist agriculture. Different forms of development of commercial
      agriculture and the formation of the class of agricultural
      wage-workers. Marx’s theory of rent. Bourgeois character of the teachings
      of the so-called critical school (Messrs. Bulgakov, Hertz, David, Chernov,
      and in part Maslov, and others), which tries to explain by natural laws
      (such as the notorious law of diminishing returns) the existence of the
      tribute levied on society by the landed proprietors. Contradictions of
      capitalism in agriculture.

LectureII.Small- and Large-Scale Production in Agriculture.

Effortsof the so-called critical school to obscure the slavery of the
      small producer in present-day society. An analysis of the monographic
      investigations completely misinterpreted by this school (M. Hecht,
      K. Klawki, Auhagen).

LectureIII.Continuation.The Baden questionnaire. Complete
      confirmation of Marxist views by its returns. General data of German
      agrarian statistics. Fable about the latifundian degeneration of big
      capital. Machinery in agriculture. Greatest deterioration of draught
      cattle in middle-peasant households. Co-operatives in agriculture; German
      general statistics of 1895 on dairy co-operatives. Difference in form
      between co-operatives in agriculture and trusts in industry, which
      prevented the so-called critical school from understanding the complete
      identity of both in their social and economic content.

LectureIV.Presentation of the Agrarian Question in Russia.Foundations of the Narodnik world outlook and its historical significance as a
      primitive form of agrariandemocracy. Central significance of the question of the peasantry (the
      village commune and people’s production). Dis integration of the peasantry
      into the rural bourgeoisie and rural proletariat. Methods of studying this
      process and its significance. Replacement of the corvée system by
      the capitalist system of economy. Reactionary character of Narodnik
      views. Requirements of the current historical moment: elimination of the
      remnants of the serf-owning system and free development of the class
      struggle in the countryside.

Outline of Lecture
	One

Marx’stheory of the development of the capitalist mode of production
      applies to agriculture just as it does to industry. Capitalism’s basic
      features and its different forms in agriculture and industry should not be
      confused.

Letus examine the characteristic basic features and the specific forms of
      the process which creates the capitalist system in agriculture. The cause
      of the appearance of this process is a double one: 1) commodity production
      and 2) the fact that labour-power, not the product, is a commodity. When
      this labour-power is drawn into exchange, all production becomes
      capitalistic, and a special class, the proletariat, is created. The growth
      of commodity production and the development of wage-labour in agriculture
      take place in a different form than ·in industry, and the
      application of Marx’s theory here may therefore seem incorrect; it is,
      however, necessary to know the form in which agriculture becomes
      capitalistic. To this end it is essential in the first place to establish
      two facts:

I.How does commercial agriculture grow? and

II.How does the formation of the working class manifest itself?

I.The basic feature of this process is the rapid growth of the industrial
      population and the sale of products on the market. Hence, extensive growth
      of the non-agricultural population is necessary for the extensive
      development of commodity agriculture. This process assumes differentforms and is to be observed in countries which import and export grain. On
      its part, the rapid growth of the industrial population creates a shortage
      of grain in the industrial countries, i.e., makes it impossible to do
      without imported grain if the technological system remains unchanged.The
      growing demand for grain under private ownership of the land leads to the
      formation of monopoly prices.

Thatis important for the explanation of rent.

Thevery process of the formation of commercial agriculture does not take
      place in exactly the same way as in factory industry: in industry it takes
      place in a simple and direct form, whereas in agriculture we see something
      different: the prevalence of a mixture of commercial and non-commercial
      agriculture. Here we have a combination of differ ent forms. In the main,
      in a given localityonedefinite product is taken to the
      market. On the one band, production on the landlord’s estate, and
      particularly on the peasant’s Land, is commodity production, while on the
      other hand it retains its consumer character.

Thenecessity to obtain money brings about the transition from natural to
      commercial economy. The power of money weighs upon the peasants, not only
      in Western Europe, but in Russia too. Zemstvo statistics show that the
      peasant’s subordination to the market attains colossal proportions even in
      places where the survivals of patriarchal economy are still very strong.

II.The process by which the class of wage-workers is formed consists in
      the disintegration of the peasantry into two strata: I) farmers who regard
      agriculture as an industry, and 2) wage-workers. This process is often
      described as the differentiation of the peasantry. In Russia in particular
      this process has been very conspicuous. It was observed by
      “economists” as far back as the times of the feudal system.

Specificfeatures of formation.

Thisprocess takes place unevenly. Alongside of the emergence of a class
      of wage-workers we see the existence of the patriarchal system and the
      formation of the new, capitalist system. The wage-workers’ class is
      connected with the land in one way or another: the forms of this process
      will consequently be very varied.

Domination of
	Capitalist Agriculture

Thepopulation in a capitalist country is divided into three classes: 1)
      wage-workers, 2) owners of land, and 3) capitalists. In studying the
      system it will be necessary to ignore specific local features where this
      distinct division may not yet exist.

Accordingto Marx, a product is basically divided into necessary and
      surplus-product. A certain part of this surplus-product constitutes ground
      rent, viz., that part which remains after the deduction of average profit
      on capital. In a developed capitalist society, average profit is formed
      under the influence of competition, which distributes the surplus-product
      among the capitalists, not in proportion to the number of workers, but in
      proportion to the total amount of capital invested in a given enterprise.

Theprocess of the formation of average profit is analysed by Marx in
      Volume III ofCapital. Capital will yield different profits on
      plots of land with varying fertility, the poorer land yielding less
      profit, and the better land—more, additional profit. (The theory of
      rent was founded before Marx by Ricardo.) Owing to monopoly prices on the
      grain market and the general shortage of grain, the price is determined by
      the poorest plot of land. The extra profit derived from the better land,
      or from the land situated close to the market, as compared with the poorer
      and more remotely situated plot, is calleddifferentialrent,
      according to Marx.

Rentis extracted from the farmers by the owners of land.

Thevarying amounts of surplus-profit may be of two kinds: 1) profit due
      to varying fertility, and 2) profit due to different application of
      capital. Further. In addition to the monopoly of private cultivation of
      the land, there is the monopoly of private ownership of the land: the
      owner of land may not give the land to the farmer until the price of grain
      rises, and then he takesabsoluterent, which is an elementary
      monopoly. It may be: 1) a pure monopoly (in that case, strictly speaking,
      it should not be called rent). Secondly, absolute rent may be taken from
      surplus-profiton agrarian capital owing to the following circumstance. In view of the
      fact that in agriculture the technical equipment is poorer, the share of
      variable capital (=which creates profit) is higher than in industry. The
      share of profit should therefore also be higher in agriculture than in
      industry. However, the monopoly of landownership prevents the levelling of
      high profit in agriculture and low profit in industry. And absolute rent
      in the strict sense of the term is taken from the higher agricultural
      profit which has not been levelled out. It has its source in higher grain
      prices. Differential rent, on the other hand, is taken from the
      product. Recent years, characterised by new countries being drawn into
      trade, have led to a crisis.

Theprice of land is calculated, anticipated rent. It is therefore treated
      as income from a certain capital. The capital to be spent on the purchase
      of land may yield an average rent income. Consequently, the rapid
      development of industry has greatly inflated and stabilised rent in
      Europe.

Alarge section of Maslov’s hook, recently published under the titleConditions of the Development of Agriculture in Russia, deals
      with the theory of rent, and in this question Maslov adheres to an
      entirely erroneous viewpoint, repeating the arguments of the bourgeois
      so-called “critics” of Marx, such as Mr. Bulgakov and
      others. Marx showed that the old English political economy took too simple
      a view of this question; it was treated not as a process creating special
      historical conditions, but as one creating natural conditions, and it
      reasoned therefore: rent is formed owing to the necessity of transition
      from the better to the poorer plots of land. But changes in the reverse
      direction also take place, inasmuch as improvements are effected. The
      critics have retreated from Marx towards bourgeois economy.

Anothernarrow concept of the theory of rent is one that combines the law
      governing the formation of differential rent with the law of diminishing
      returns, which alleges that profits diminish on one and the same plot of
      land. Ricardo explains the transition from the better plots to the poorer
      ones by theimpossibilityof applying increasing amounts of
      capital. All the Russian “critics” have taken up the defence
      of the theory of diminishing returns, as hasMaslov, who in all other questions wants to remain a Marxist. But the
      arguments in defence of this theory have not gone beyond quips, as, for
      example, the one which claims that if this theory is not recognised then
      it must be admitted that the returns of one plot of land should be enough
      to feed a whole state.

Marxfought against this theory. It adopts an arithmetical approach to the
      expenditure of capital and falls into error by ignoring general economic
      conditions. If we assume that the application of ever greater amounts of
      capital is always possible, then it would have been correct, but that
      presupposes the transformation of systems; however, systems in agriculture
      persist for ages, which has placed the application of capital within
      definite limits. If techniques do not change, then further application of
      capital is impossible, or possible within narrow limits. Marx pointed out
      that in industry too production cannot be developed infinitely on a given
      plot of land: if a definite territory is occupied by an enterprise, it has
      to be expanded if it is to be developed.If, on the other hand,
      land is rationally cultivated, that can only improve production; therefore
      Marx deduces that, far from being a disadvantage, such use of the land is,
      on the contrary, profitable. Precisely this“if”.was
      ignored by the opponents of Marx’s theory. Consequently, Maslov, as an
      alleged Marxist, can mislead many people by his views in this
      question. His book is one of the countless examples of a tendency to be
      seen in our time: going back instead of forward.

Thereis an absolute decline in the agricultural population, but
      agricultural production is making progress. In the nineteenth century this
      progress was closely connected with the growth of commodity
      agriculture. It brings out one of the main features of the capitalist
      system today, which is expressed in the development of competition in
      agriculture, in the creation of a market for it, and in the
      differentiation of the population. This progress has given a strong
      stimulus to the development of agriculture, but every step in this
      progress has been attended by a rise of contradictions which make it
      impossible to use all the productive forces of the new, scientific
      agriculture. Capitalism creates large-scale production and competition,which are attended by rapacious use of the productive forces of the
      soil. Concentration of the population in the cities creates depopulated
      territories and an abnormal metabolism. Cultivation of the land is not
      improved, or not improved as it should be.

Socialistcritics directed attention to this fact a long time ago
      (Marx). Mr. Hertz, and, later, Messrs. Bulgakov, Chernov, and Struve here
      in Russia maintained that the theory of Marx, who relied upon Liebig, had
      become antiquated. This opinion of the “critics” is quite
      fallacious. There is no doubt that capitalism has upset the equilibrium
      between the exploitation of the land and fertilisation of the land (the
      role of the separation of the town from the countryside). With many
      writers who sympathise with the “criticism” of the Marxist
      theory rather than with this theory itself, their own data speak against
      them. An example is Nossig. According to his data, it would appear that
      the productive forces of the soil are not replenished, that the land does
      not get back what is taken from it. Both manure and artificial fertilisers
      are required. One-third of an average of 60,000 kilograms of fertilisers
      used per hectare of land should be made up of manure, but that cannot be
      provided under the existing system of agriculture.

Thus,the influence of capitalism in agriculture is expressed in the
      following:

Itdemands freedom for the wage-worker and ousts all forms of the old
      bondage. But the agricultural wage-workers remain oppressed. Their
      oppression has become greater, which has created the need for greater
      struggle.

Capitalismhas increased to a tremendous degree the tribute exacted by the
      owner of land, the magnitude of differential and absolute rent. The further
      development of agriculture is hampered by inflated rent.

[1]This work consists of the programme of lectures on the agrarian question
      and an outline of the first lecture delivered by Lenin in February 1903 at
      the Higher Russian School of Social Sciences in Paris. The school was
      founded in 1901 for Russian students living abroad, and functioned
      legally. The organisers of the school openly showed their dislike of the
      revolutionary Marxists and expressed sympathy with the representatives of
      the Narodniks and Socialist-Revolutionary party. However, Lenin’s prestige
      as a theoretician of the agrarian question was so high that the school’s
      Council of Professors decided to invite “the well-known Marxist
      Vi. Ilyin” (V. I.Lenin—Ed.), “author of the
      legal hooks,The Development of Capitalism in RussiaandEconomic Studies,”to deliver a course of lectures on the
      agrarian question.

Lenindrafted the programme of his lectures well in advance and presented
      it before opening the course. The outline of the first lecturecontained in this volume was taken down by one of the students of the
      school during the lecture and was then edited by Lenin.